Environment

Japan’s earthquake and tsunami not only ignited catastrophic explosions
at the Fukushima nuclear plant, it also sent shockwaves through global
energy policy

Naoto Kan has stepped down as Japan’s prime minister, the latest
casualty of his government’s incompetence in the face of the disaster in
March. His successor, Yoshihiko Noda, previously finance minister, is
the sixth prime minister in five years, also a reflection of the
frustration and anger at decades of economic stagnation.

Noda is trying to come to the rescue of the nuclear industry but faces
an uphill task. Three of Japan’s senior nuclear energy officials are
being replaced. Banri Kaida, minister in charge of the industry, has
also said he will step down.

On 3 August, The Guardian reported that lethal levels of radiation are
still being found at the plant. Tokyo Electric Power admitted that
radiation exceeding 10,000 millisieverts (mSv) per hour has been
detected. Workers are allowed to be exposed to a maximum of 250 mSv a
year. The way Tokyo Electric Power and the government of Naoto Kan
mishandled the catastrophe led to mass anger erupting onto the streets.

David Pilling reported in the Financial Times (1 August) from a
town-hall meeting in Fukushima where local people met with government
bureaucrats from Tokyo. Anger mounted at the evasive answers to their
questions. The meeting ended with members of the audience chasing the
officials with vials of urine, demanding that their children’s urine is
tested for levels of radiation. There is deep anger at out-of-touch
establishment politicians who seem willing to test beef for radiation,
primarily to protect agribusiness interests, while ignoring the health
concerns and needs of people.

Nuclear industry impunity

Japan’s nuclear power industry has been completely unaccountable and has
acted with impunity. Lacking fossil-fuel resources, nuclear energy has
been prioritised to drive Japan’s huge industrial sector. But the
Fukushima near-miss (so far) testifies to the potential dangers of this
policy.

Thirty-eight of Japan’s 54 reactors are currently shut down, mostly for
routine inspections. Under pressure, however, local governments have
refused to reopen them. It is conceivable that by next March all 54
could be out of action as there are inspections every 13 months. That
would strip Japan of nearly a third of its pre-11 March power-generation
capacity.

Kaida further enraged people with his announcement that most of the
reactors are safe, without giving any indication on how he made that
judgment. People are demanding that the government explains the risks
openly, instead of issuing bland, blanket assurances: “So sour is the
prevailing mood that this really might put a nail in the nuclear
coffin”. (Economist, 24 June)

The new wave of protest and struggle has echoes of the 1970s, when
community groups were instrumental in changing government policy on the
environment, pressing for improvements in air and water quality. Japan’s
entire energy policy is under scrutiny, as are the levels of
compensation for evacuees, and wider issues such as devolving more
political power from Tokyo.

Obvious, but ominous and unanswerable, questions were posed by Dieter
Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University: “How could a
sophisticated country like Japan put its back-up generators in the path
of a large wave? The question is: what else hasn’t been checked?”
(Financial Times, 7 June) About 440 nuclear power reactors are in
operation around the world. Another 60 are under construction and 493
more are planned or proposed. Many of these are in countries with far
inferior infrastructural and technological development than Japan.

U-turn in Germany

Less than five months before the catastrophe in Japan, German
chancellor, Angela Merkel, pushed through her plan to extend the
lifetime of Germany’s nuclear plants to 2036 from 2022. This immediately
ignited protests. The Fukushima disaster saw this mood explode in
massive demonstrations. Such was the level of anger that Merkel was
forced into a complete u-turn on 30 May.

Her right-wing Christian Democratic Party had suffered defeats in five
regional elections, notably coming behind the Social Democrats and
Greens in Bremen in May for the first time at state level. Buffeted by
the eurozone crisis, and with federal elections on the horizon in 2013,
Merkel is desperately hoping for a political revival. She is now a
zealous convert to non-nuclear energy, claiming that her ‘energy switch’
is akin to the reunification of East and West Germany following the
dismantling of the Berlin wall – consciously using language reminiscent
of that time.

The eight oldest nuclear plants are to be shut down by the end of this
year. Another six will close between 2015 and the end of 2021, the last
three by the end of 2022. The government claims that nuclear power,
which produces 23% of the nation’s electricity, will be replaced mainly
with renewable energy, whose proportion of electricity production is
targeted to reach 35% by 2020. (In 2000, 30% of electricity came from
nuclear. Since then, renewables have expanded their share from 6.6% to
16.5%.)

There is a long way to go to achieve this. The Financial Times pointed
out (3 July) that Germany has only one working commercial offshore wind
farm and one near completion. They will generate 92 megawatts (MW) – a
tenth of that from a typical nuclear plant. In comparison, Britain has
about 1,300MW. Much of Germany’s coastline is a national park, forcing
plants into deep water. Of the 3,500km (2,175 miles) of transmission
lines needed to carry renewable power from northern sources to the south
and west, just 90km have been built. It is clear, nonetheless, that a
section of German manufacturing is looking to capitalise on today’s
favourable circumstances by investing in the sustainable energy market.

The chief short-to-medium term beneficiary, however, will be natural
gas. Merkel’s ‘energy switch’ plan says that fossil fuel-burning power
stations could replace about half of the 20,000MW of nuclear capacity
that will be taken out by 2022. But the government says it will need
another 10,000MW in capacity to make sure Germany does not suffer power
outages or have to resort to importing electricity from France or Czech
Republic, which would be nuclear generated.

International repercussions

The Swiss parliament also voted against renewing the country’s nuclear
reactors. This followed mass demonstrations, including a 20,000-strong
protest on 28 May. As in Germany, the decision was a 180° turn. As
recently as this spring, new reactors were being considered.

In Italy, just two weeks after Silvio Berlusconi’s coalition was
hammered in Italy’s local elections, referendums rejected legislation on
nuclear energy, the privatisation of water utilities and legal immunity
for government ministers. This was a protest which linked issues raised
by Fukushima with a general rejection of Berlusconi’s rule. It was the
first time since 1995 that the turnout in a referendum had reached the
required limit to be binding. Now Italy’s Enel and France’s EDF have to
scrap plans to build Italy’s first nuclear power plants since a 1987
referendum mothballed existing reactors.

Thailand has halted the construction of five nuclear plants. And
Malaysia, which had planned to start up its first nuclear station in
2021, has put its programme on hold.

The Fukushima shockwave also reached the US. Officials had claimed that
reactors in the US would be safe from such disasters because of their
stronger venting systems. But Tokyo Electric Power Company has released
documents showing that Fukushima Daiichi installed the same vents years
ago. (New York Times, 17 May) They detail the growing desperation at the
plant as workers struggled in vain to manually open the safety valves.
As a result, three of the reactors exploded in succession.

The venting system had first been introduced in the US in the late
1980s. This was part of a ‘safety enhancement programme’ for
boiling-water reactors of the Mark I containment type, designed by
General Electric in the 1960s. Between 1998 and 2001, it was brought
into Fukushima Daiichi, where five of six reactors use the Mark I system.

Short-term views

Clearly, there is a global rejection of nuclear power. However, the
argument, increasingly endorsed by many environmentalists, is that
nuclear power is necessary to avoid the world’s energy demand being met
by fossil fuels, in spite of its dangers. But this is a position of
resignation, based on the false assumption that capitalism is the only
economic system possible.

Generally speaking, research, development and investment in renewable
energy have been minimal. Japan, for instance, is the second-largest
manufacturer of solar panels, behind China, with companies like Toshiba,
Panasonic and Sharp to the fore. Yet, according to government data, in
2007 Japan generated just 6% of its primary energy from renewable
sources, including hydropower, virtually unchanged since 1973. In
Britain, despite coalition government hype, investment in renewables
fell by 70% in 2010. (Financial Times, 19 May)

Profit-driven capitalism is locked onto short-term, stop-gap measures.
The exploitation of shale gas is just the latest in a long line of
spurious ‘solutions’ (see box). Here too, however, mass pressure has had
an effect. The French government awarded permits to major oil companies
with little or no public consultation or information. This provoked a
huge backlash, with hundreds of anti-shale groups organising protests
and rallies. These have led to a moratorium on the industry.

Despite the claims, shale gas will cause untold damage to land, water
and air. It will ensure the continued use of fossil fuels into the
future. This is at a time when the International Energy Agency estimates
that greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record, with 30.6 gigatonnes
(Gt) of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere last year, a rise of
1.6Gt on 2009. (Guardian, 30 May)

The IEA calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging
effects of global warming, annual energy-related emissions should be no
more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year’s emissions rise by as much as they
did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule,
making it all but impossible to keep warming to a manageable level, on
the basis of the gas-guzzling capitalist system.

The dangers of fracking shale

GAS COMPANIES are pushing shale gas as the best way to meet rising
demand for power and cut emissions. Shale gas is produced by a process
of fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals deep
underground into horizontal gas wells at extremely high pressure to
break apart hard, hydrocarbon-rich shale and extract natural gas.

Britain’s coalition government is keen. A report from the Energy
and Climate Change Select Committee of MPs argued that shale gas could
boost domestic gas production and enhance energy security. It said
that there was no evidence that fracking was unsafe or that it posed a
risk to water supplies. (Guardian, 13 June) Maybe the MPs had not seen
last year’s Oscar-nominated documentary, Gasland, which famously
showed water so contaminated that residents in Pennsylvania were able
to set it alight when it flowed from their taps.

Pennsylvania is where the shale trail is being blazed. Companies,
such as Shell, Chevron, Reliance and BG Group (half of the former
British Gas), expect to drill 2,000 additional wells in the state this
year, on top of 1,415 in 2010.

Shale gas extraction has caused a very long list of catastrophes –
fraccidents as they are becoming known. In April in Bradford County,
Pennsylvania, drillers lost control of a well which spewed chemicals
for 19 hours. Homeowners have been issued with gas detectors to lower
the risk of an explosion – two homes have exploded since late last
year. Residents in a number of towns have to boil tap water before
drinking after water treatment plants were polluted by bromides from
gas-drilling projects.

A blowout at a gas well in Punxsutawney, Clearfield County, hurled
a 23-metre combustible gusher of gas and toxic waste water into the
air. It took the gas company, EOG Resources, 16 hours to control it. A
report released by Democratic members of Congress on 18 April found
that more than 650 of the chemicals used in fracking were carcinogens.
They have been used in at least 13 states. (Guardian, 1 June)

The gas industry has used a report by the European Gas Advocacy
Forum (EGAF) to back up its hyperbole. The EGAF claims that shale gas
would be a cheaper and more viable form of energy than renewables, and
that it would generate half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal. This
report, however, is a distortion of a study by the European Climate
Foundation (ECF), a green think-tank. The ECF stated: “We in no way
endorse this [EGAF] report. Heavy dependency on gas, as this report
seems to suggest, is not a viable alternative to a low-carbon
generation network with low dependence on fossil fuels in terms of
cost, energy security, or climate resilience”. (Guardian, 20 April)

A study from Cornell University, published in the Climate Change
Letters journal, also exposes the EGAF spin. It showed, for example,
that 4-8% of the methane from shale gas production escaped into the
atmosphere during the lifetime of a well. Methane is more than 20
times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. If all emissions
associated with shale gas production and combustion are taken into
account, it could be even more harmful in climate change terms than
coal, which is widely regarded as the dirtiest fossil fuel.